4 ms·

Did you actually use the word "manipulation", or did you just criticize deception/dishonesty? (Would be interested in a link if you have one.) I think the vale

Did you actually use the word "manipulation", or did you just criticize deception/dishonesty? (Would be interested in a link if you have one.) I think the valence behind the word "manipulation" is so clear in real-world usage that it would be incorrect, from a linguistic descriptivist perspective, to use it this way. It would be like using the word "miserly" for thrifty behavior that you endorsed.

hutzlibu 5y ago
I am not a native english speaker, but I do not really see a big difference between manipulation and deception and dishonesty. And I rarely call this behavior out in those words in those situations. Example? Vaccination. I am in the "political" camp of people, who think as much people as possible should get vaccinated against covid. Still, when I see posts written that go: "there is no reason to not get vaccinated, they are totally safe" (meant especially to covid, but also in a general sense) and I respond, that "no, they are not total safe, there have been incidents of contaminated production batches for example and it is not 100% clear, that for young people there is individually more benefit than potential harm and no doctor ever advised of taking just any vaccination (there are many vaccinations with actual higher risks, only benefiting, when visiting certain areas)" than I have to word it very, very careful or face a shitstorm even here. As in their perception I fight then against their political cause - overcoming the pandemic with more vaccinations. While in my perception they try to reach their goals with lies, which I do not agree with, despite agreeing to the goal.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- todorus 5y ago
  There's a difference between reasonable and pedantic. To say "going through that neighborhood is perfectly safe", doesn't mean you're not aware of there ever being crimes there. So yeah, if you would try something like that within the context of a very contested issue, I would definitely assume you're clandestinely trying to sabotage the discussion.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    Yeah, I know. People mean different things, when they say they want to have a discussion guided by facts. I mean it literal. "there is no reason to not get vaccinated, they are totally safe" And since this is factual wrong, I think it is very weird to assume that I would want to sabotage a discussion, when relativating absolutistic statements, that bring no benefit to any discussion. They only enforce groupthink. But this this rather the cultural default, which I am quite aware of.

hutzlibu 5y ago

I am not a native english speaker, but I do not really see a big difference between manipulation and deception and dishonesty. And I rarely call this behavior out in those words in those situations. Example? Vaccination. I am in the "political" camp of people, who think as much people as possible should get vaccinated against covid. Still, when I see posts written that go: "there is no reason to not get vaccinated, they are totally safe" (meant especially to covid, but also in a general sense) and I respond, that "no, they are not total safe, there have been incidents of contaminated production batches for example and it is not 100% clear, that for young people there is individually more benefit than potential harm and no doctor ever advised of taking just any vaccination (there are many vaccinations with actual higher risks, only benefiting, when visiting certain areas)" than I have to word it very, very careful or face a shitstorm even here. As in their perception I fight then against their political cause - overcoming the pandemic with more vaccinations. While in my perception they try to reach their goals with lies, which I do not agree with, despite agreeing to the goal.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
todorus 5y ago
There's a difference between reasonable and pedantic. To say "going through that neighborhood is perfectly safe", doesn't mean you're not aware of there ever being crimes there. So yeah, if you would try something like that within the context of a very contested issue, I would definitely assume you're clandestinely trying to sabotage the discussion.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Yeah, I know. People mean different things, when they say they want to have a discussion guided by facts. I mean it literal. "there is no reason to not get vaccinated, they are totally safe" And since this is factual wrong, I think it is very weird to assume that I would want to sabotage a discussion, when relativating absolutistic statements, that bring no benefit to any discussion. They only enforce groupthink. But this this rather the cultural default, which I am quite aware of.